alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Planning Context: DC to Richmond Corridor

The Washington DC, – Richmond, VA, Corridor, owned by CSX Transportation, carries trains

from Washington to Richmond and points beyond. The Atlantic Gateway, VRE System Plan,

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, and DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail

(DC2RVA) plans define the investments needed to improve the corridor’s rail service.

October 2019

NEC To Baltimore

SE HSR To Norfolk/Raleigh (Future) SE HSR To Newport News (Future)

DC to Richmond Corridor

Washington, DC – Richmond, VA

Select DC to Richmond Improvement Projects

See Inset

Map Key:

Existing Amtrak Service

VRE Service

Other Corridors

Installation of 2 Track 

Crossovers in Caroline County

Increasing Reliability

Arkendale to Powell’s 

Creek Third Track

Increasing Capacity & Reliability

Franconia to 

Occoquan Third Track

Increasing Capacity & Reliability

DC – Alexandria 4th

Track (throughout)

Increasing Capacity & Reliability

Crystal City Station 

Improvements

Improving Passenger Experience

L’Enfant Plaza Station 

Improvements 

Increasing commuter rail 

capacity

Washington Union 

Station Expansion

Increasing Station Capacity and 

Improving Passenger Experience

Long 

Bridge 

Increasing 

Capacity & 

Reliability

Alexandria Station 

Pedestrian Tunnel

Improving Pedestrian Access

VRE 

Storage 

Yard

Increasing 

Midday 

Capacity

Washington Area (Enlarged)

Ongoing Project Project in DEIS 

Stage

Project Key:

Planned Project

DC to Richmond Corridor 

Planning Framework

FRA and state partners have outlined 

long-term goals for modernized, 

improved service:

• 18 intercity trains per day in each 

direction South of Alexandria, plus 

Auto Train 

• 23 VRE Fredericksburg Line trains 

per weekday in each direction

• Improved reliability and on-time 

performance with a maximum 

authorized passenger train speed of 

90 mph

The goals require additional rail 

infrastructure improvements and state 

sponsored train services.

Downtown Richmond Passenger 

Rail Service Reroute

Reducing Travel Time & Improving Access

Installation of 3rd Mainline Track 

from DC to Richmond 

Future Southeast HSR
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE EMILIANO DIAZ-LARA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30236

D.C. No. 1:10-cr-30010-PA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 24, 2013** 

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Jose Emiliano Diaz-Lara appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute more than 50

grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

FILED

AUG 01 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-30236

(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

Diaz-Lara contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

explain adequately why it declined to grant a downward variance and by failing to

address Diaz-Lara’s argument regarding his comparative culpability. We review

for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th

Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court entertained the parties’ arguments,

concluded that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors distinguished DiazLara’s case from that of his codefendant, and adequately explained Diaz-Lara’s

sentence.

Diaz-Lara also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Diaz-Lara’s sentence. See

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In light of the totality of the

circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence at the

bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See id.

We decline to consider Diaz-Lara’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim

on direct appeal because the record is insufficiently developed. See United States

v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003). Diaz-Lara’s request for
3 12-30236

appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to refiling in the district court

in the event he files a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Diaz-Lara’s motion to strike the government’s supplemental excerpt of

record is denied.

AFFIRMED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DAVID LEROY WHARTON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1081

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

 )

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed August 23, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Pasco County; Susan G. Barthle, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Blain A. Goff,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Case No. 14,694.

#### UNITED STATES v. BILL.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 518.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1824.

Constable — Bond—Removal prom Office.

A constable’s official bond is not vacated, or rendered void, by his temporary removal from office, but covers his official conduct after his reinstatement in office as well a's before the suspension of his functions.

[See Cases Nos. 1,405 and 14,594.]

The defendant [A. T. F. Bill) had been appointed by the court, a constable for the county of Washington, and gave bond in 1818. The suit was brought to recover the amount which he had received upon two writs of fieri facias, in favor of A. and J. B. Holmead.

The court, on the 20th of January, 1819, upon the request of the grand jury; ordered that “he be removed” from the office of constable. On the 27th of the same month, the court, for reasons stated on the minutes, ordered “that he be reinstated in his office of constable, and that»the former order, dismissing him from that office, be rescinded.” The two writs of fieri facias, for the amount of which he was now charged, and which he had returned “Satisfied,” were dated in April, 1819, and returnable on the first Monday of May following. The defendant demurred to the evidence, and contended that his bond was vacated by his removal from office, and that it did not cover his official acts done after the order for his removal was rescinded.

But

THE COURT

was of opinion, that the order for his removal having been rescinded at the same term, it is as if it had never been made, and did not release his sureties from responsibility for his subsequent official acts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                   3,190
<SECURITIES>                                             1,250
<RECEIVABLES>                                           10,578
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                              6,605
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        22,294
<PP&E>                                                 131,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                          46,753
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         113,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   10,686
<BONDS>                                                 31,454
<COMMON>                                                 2,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                              22,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           113,341
<SALES>                                                 32,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        50,157
<CGS>                                                   22,982
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           33,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       4,350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (1,128)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              (507)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (621)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (621)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (0.49)


</TABLE>
December 8, 1971

No. 24,319

#### United States v Leonard H. Swartz, Jr., PVT, U. S. Army (CM 423368).

On consideration of the “Request for Extension of Time to Consider Certification” in the above-entitled case, and construed by the Court as a Motion for Leave to File a Certificate for Review, it appearing that said Certificate was received subsequent to the expiration of the thirty-day period established by Rule 25 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure and no adequate explanation of said delay has been advanced to justify a waiver of said Rule 25, it is, by the Court, this 8th day of December 1971,

ORDERED:

That said motion be, and the same is, hereby denied.

Opinion rendered on first Certificate on October 8, 1971. 21 USCMA 75, 44 CMR 129.
# Official Journal C 287A/1 Se

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 287A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 581 September 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 287A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 581 September 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2015/C 287A/01 | Recruitment notice PE/187/S — Director (Function group AD, grade 14) — Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union — Directorate for Committees | 1 |
| 2015/C 287A/02 | Recruitment notice PE/188/S — Director (Function group AD, grade 14) — Secretary-General — Office of the Secretary-General | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Parliament

2015/C 287A/01

Recruitment notice PE/187/S — Director (Function group AD, grade 14) — Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union — Directorate for Committees

1

2015/C 287A/02

Recruitment notice PE/188/S — Director (Function group AD, grade 14) — Secretary-General — Office of the Secretary-General

8

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 76 (Friday, April 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7583]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1678-DR]

Oklahoma; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1678-DR), dated February 1, 2007, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 12, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of February 1, 2007:

    Caddo, Garfield, Pushmataha, and Stephens Counties for Public 
Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E7-7583 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
```
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM



We have issued our report dated March 16, 2017, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Innocoll Holdings plc on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2016. We consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statement of Innocoll Holdings plc on Form S-8 (File No. 333-211801) and the Registration Statement of Innocoll
AG on Form F-3 (File No. 333-207184).



|/s/ Grant Thornton | 
|------------------ | 
|                   | 
|Dublin, Ireland    | 
|                   | 
|March 16, 2017     |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 18, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41155 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HILARIO HERNANDEZ-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-157-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Hilario Hernandez-Pineda has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hernandez-Pineda has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Case No. 9,909.

#### The MULGRAVE.

[See Case No. 9,910.]
----

(2004/C 84 E/0891)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0462/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Guinea-Bissau — Commission support

In reply to my question E-3129/03 (1), the Commission revealed that within the framework of the Cotonou Agreement, it would be exploring how to exercise a positive influence on developments in Guinea-Bissau.

The press report that the UN Development Programme (UNDP) recently set up an emergency fund to help Guinea-Bissau re-establish the social services affected by the virtually permanent state of crisis that has prevailed since 1998.

Part of the USD 18,3 million made available will be used to pay workers in the health and teaching sectors, which have been rendered inoperable due to lack of funds.

The Netherlands and Portugal are amongst the countries which have already contributed to the UNDP Fund, so that life in Guinea-Bissau can regain a certain degree of normalcy and the legislative elections of March 2004, the first for four years, will not be cancelled.

The Council, for its part, has recently issued a statement on the situation in Guinea-Bissau, which is overall positive and hopeful.

What conclusions has the Commission reached as to the best way to exercise more influence over developments?

What specific measures has it taken or is it going to take in this respect?

Following the census establishing the electoral register, is the Commission providing human and material support for the holding of legislative elections, so that they will be able to take place on the scheduled date, 28 March 2004, and thus help provide the democratic solutions that will enable the country to get out of the prolonged crisis into which it has been plunged? In what ways does the Commission intend to do this?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

First, the Commission would like to stress that it certainly shares the assessment of the situation set out in the Council conclusions to which the Honourable Member refers.

The conclusions arrived at following the consultations relate to the honouring of commitments made by authorities in Guinea-Bissau, i.e. commitments concerning:

The EU will monitor the situation very closely over a period of three months, with regular monthly reports.

The Commission will monitor and assess in detail, both inside and outside Guinea-Bissau, the authorities' commitments discussed in the consultations, especially those commitments referred to above. Decisions will not be taken until this monitoring phase is complete.

Cooperation will continue as usual during this consultation period.

With regard to Community support for legislative elections, the Commission started in July 2003 to implement a financing agreement allocating EUR 1,2 million from the 9th European Development Fund to support elections. Funding will go towards equipment, consumables, logistical administrative support, awareness-raising measures, training and technical assistance. The project is now underway and is being implemented in accordance with the funding agreement.

----

(1)  See page 731.

----
```

[104th Congress Public Law 255]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ255.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 3169]]

Public Law 104-255
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To designate the building located at 8302 FM 327, Elmendorf, Texas, 
  which houses operations of the United States Postal Service, as the 
``Amos F. Longoria Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 9, 1996 -  [H.R. 
                                2700]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The building located at 8302 FM 327, Elmendorf, Texas, which houses 
operations of the United States Postal Service, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Amos F. Longoria Post Office Building'', and any 
reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of 
the United States to such building shall be deemed to be a reference to 
the ``Amos F. Longoria Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

    Paragraph (3) of section 3626(b) of title 39, United States Code, is 
amended by striking the period and inserting ``, and includes a 
nonprofit organization that coordinates a network of college-level 
courses that is sponsored primarily by nonprofit educational 
institutions for an older adult constituency.''.

    Approved October 9, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2700:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
            July 30, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 28, considered and passed Senate, amended; House 
                concurred in Senate amendment.

                                  <all>
```
----

Election of the President of a Chamber composed of three Judges

(2005/C 205/27)

On 7 July 2005 the Court of First Instance, in accordance with Article 15(3) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Judge García-Valdecasas President of a Chamber sitting with three Judges for the period from 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006.

----
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ADAM CHASTEEN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ROD JOHNSON, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 2:12-cv-229 

 Judge Marbley 

Magistrate Judge King 

 

ORDER 

 

 On August 31, 2012, the State of Ohio, making a special 

appearance pursuant to O.R.C. § 109.361, moved to dismiss plaintiff’s 

complaint for insufficient service of process. Doc. No. 49. The 

State argues that, although the Court had previously granted plaintiff 

until September 1, 2012 to demonstrate that he has taken all 

appropriate action to effect service of process, he failed to do so. 

Id. The State further argues that plaintiff’s claims should be 

dismissed for failure to take reasonable steps to effect service of 

process. Id. 

 After the filing of the State’s motion to dismiss, however, the 

Court extended the deadline for demonstrating effective service of 

process on the remaining named defendants to November 21, 2012. 

Order, Doc. No. 59. The docket also reflects that plaintiff has since 

served at least some of the remaining defendants, see, e.g., Doc. Nos. 

63, 67-68, and the State has again moved to dismiss certain defendants 

for insufficient service of process. See Doc. Nos. 76, 79. Under 

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 87 Filed: 01/07/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

these circumstances, the State’s August 31, 2012 motion to dismiss, 

Doc. No. 49, is DENIED as moot. 

 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley 

 United States District Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 87 Filed: 01/07/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
(Reap. Dec. 9257)

#### Vibro Plus Products, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 933553; 919285; 907942.

(Decided November 20, 1958)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated above present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain clutch couplings.

These cases have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed by the parties hereto that the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the United Kingdom in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption in the United Kingdom, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was 33 English pounds sterling each, less 20 per centum packed. It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher export value for said merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise in issue, *582and that said value is 33 English pounds sterling each, less 20 per centum packed. As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed. .

Judgment will issue accordingly.